Ending TV ban on product placement is sensible move

Advertisers are up against it. Commercial television companies are suffering from reduced revenue. So what a great wheeze it must have seemed to the Government to solve the problems of both by suggesting that it was time for British TV to enjoy the benefits of product placement.

This sudden decision to lift the current ban "in principle" comes barely six months after the Government informed us that it was unconvinced about the virtues of product placement.

At that time, the then secretary for culture, media and sport, Andy Burnham, was moved to explain that placement would blur the boundaries between advertising and content.

He added: "My priority has always been to make sure we maintain levels of trust between audiences and broadcasters, and protect the standards of broadcasting for which Britain is known worldwide."

So why has his ministerial successor, Ben Bradshaw, performed a mighty U-turn? We may learn a little more about that when he speaks at the Royal Television Society convention later today but, thus far, he has offered only one simple, and somewhat simplistic, answer — the climate has changed. What? Changed in six months?

The evidence for a qualitative change since March this year is pretty thin.

It is true that ITV reported a loss of £105 million last month. It is also true that profits at WPP, the world's largest advertising company, almost halved in the first six months of this year.

But neither of those results came as a shock. They were part of the gloomy media climate that had existed for at least 18 months beforehand and, in ITV's case, much longer. It is therefore difficult to accept Bradshaw's reasoning.

By suggesting that he will now conduct a consultation process, he is ignoring the fact that Burnham's decision was itself based on the results of a three-month consultation.

It is true that the Government did say it would review its position, but not until 2011 or 2012. It also announced that it would take into account the conclusions reached by Ofcom on the TV advertising market, possible changes in viewing habits and "any new evidence about the impact and potential benefits of product placement".

Let's consider these three separately. Ofcom is certainly in favour. Though warned off looking specifically at product placement by the Government back in 2005, its chief executive, Ed Richards, now supports the move. Speaking at the Edinburgh Festival two weeks ago, he said Ofcom had made it clear a couple of years ago that it was "comfortable with liberalisation" and therefore disagreed with the Government ban. He added: "Do I believe that there could be a role for product placement in enhancing commercial revenue without significant viewer detriment if handled well and appropriately? Yes I do."

Should Bradshaw's decision be adopted, it will fall to Ofcom to draw up rules and regulate it, probably underlining that part of its code about not giving "undue prominence" to a product. (So the notion that Simon Cowell will hold up a branded drink as he passes judgment on a Britain's Got Talent entrant is a non-starter).

But Ofcom is unlikely to have badgered Bradshaw. Perhaps it was lobbying by ITV that changed his mind. After all, ITV's chairman Michael Grade did refer to Burnham's decision to maintain the ban as perverse.

In fact, ITV had more or less given up on winning the product placement argument, so the announcement came as a welcome surprise to the cash-strapped broadcaster. As for this business of changing viewing habits, it is — and I am putting this as politely as possible — a complete nonsense. Are we to believe that people are persuaded to watch programmes based on the likelihood of a character visibly engaged in drinking from a branded coffee cup, wearing a certain pair of designer shoes or consulting a particular Swiss company's watch?

On the other hand, I cannot imagine that many, if any, viewers will switch off because they spot a genuine box of cornflakes on a shelf in a Coronation Street house rather than the silly fake one that producers must use at present.

Given that all three factors are unlikely to have spurred Bradshaw to make his announcement, I have more than a hunch that he has been influenced by his officials and special advisers who failed to carry Burnham with them previously.

It is known that they were largely persuaded of the relative lack of harm in product placement during Burnham's consultation period and were baffled by his stubborn objections to reform. They pointed then to the fact that product placement is widely used in the rest of Europe, and backed by an EU directive.

I have to say that I am fairly relaxed about its introduction as long as there are safeguards. There may be dangers in subliminal advertising images, but the straightforward use of brands on TV appears relatively harmless.

Indeed, we already experience them because TV screens movies that use products blatantly. Embedded marketing, as it is sometimes called, is part of our lives and we, the viewers, are media-savvy enough to know what is happening.

Designer brands are part of our reality and it is the absence of them we probably note more than their appearance. I cannot imagine that ITV and other commercial broadcasters will make a mint from product placement, but every little bit helps nowadays.

Companies are aware that viewers have taken advantage of new technology to avoid watching the TV ad breaks. Product placement is one small way of trying to redress the balance.